Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [tied] PK

Expand Messages
  • guto rhys
    Thanks for the comprenesive answer. This helps me a great deal with a subject which has long perplexed me. How far back does this push the separation between
    Message 1 of 29 , Sep 1 11:18 AM

      Thanks for the comprenesive answer. This helps me a great deal with a subject which has long perplexed me. How far back does this push the separation between p-Celtic and c-Celtic? 'Gaulish' had both, or was the difference in pronunciation a mere insignificant dialectal difference?

      Guto

       Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

      On Sat, 31 Aug 2002 14:33:08 -0700 (PDT), guto rhys <gutorhys@...> wrote:

      >A few months ago Piotr touched on the PIE phoneme which gave both 'p' and 'k' in
      >later reflexes. He mentioned something about a 'p' with some velar element (I think).

      Must have been me.  There is no doubt that PIE possessed a series of labiovelar
      consonants (*kW, *gW, *ghW), which become plain velars (satem-group; Old Irish;
      Greek), remain as labiovelars (Latin, Gothic, Ogham Irish, Linear B Greek) or
      give labial consonants (Brythonic, Osco-Umbrian, Romanian, Greek). 

      In Germanic, however, there is a small number of roots which show *f, *b where
      one would have expected *hw, *g(w).  Some examples are: wolf, oven, leave,
      liver, bid, from PIE *wl.kWos, *h2aukW-, *leikW-, *(l)ye(:)kWr-, *ghWedh-.  My
      hypothesis is that these words originally had labialized *pW, *bhW (note the
      lack of *bW, as expected), which later mostly merged with *kW, *ghW, except in
      Germanic, where the reflexes are as for *p, *bh.

      It was objected that labialized labials are extremely rare in the world's
      languages, which they are, but in languages where *i and *u have been lost
      relatively recently (as e.g. in the NW Caucasian lgs., or as in PIE [where *i
      and *u are indeed almost lacking as vowels]), one may expect the palatal and
      labial feature of the lost vowels to have been transferred to the neighbouring
      consonants, leading, amongst other things, to labialized labials.  It is also to
      be expected that the labialized labials will be the first to go (followed by the
      labialized dentals), while labialized velars are a lot tougher to get rid of
      (again, as seen in PIE, where only the *kW series maintained full phonological
      status up to the breakup of PIE).  Another objection was that there are no
      parallels for a development *pW > *kW, which may or may not be true (in any
      case, I don't know of any documented cases).  However, the fact that the
      development *kW > *p is extremely common, and that it's due to the large
      acoustic similarity between *kW and *p, makes me feel quite confident that in a
      language having *pW and *kW [of which there are not many, see above], the more
      marked consonant (*pW) will tend to merge with the less marked and acoustically
      quite similar *kW (just as in a language having *p and *kW, the more marked
      consonant (*kW) will tend to merge with the less marked and acoustically quite
      similar *p).

      Note further that "Germanic *p (*b) ~ non-Germanic *kW (*ghW)" is actually an
      over-simplification:

      WOLF
      - We have Germanic *kW > *ghW (Verner) in ON. ylgr < *wl.kWi: "she-wolf"
      - We have *wl.p- in Latin lupus "wolf"; volpe:s "fox", Av. urupis "dog", raopis
      "fox, jackal", Skt. lopa:s'�- "jackal, fox", Arm. alu�s, Grk. alope:ks, Lith.
      l�pe:, Latv. lapsa "fox".

      OVEN
      - We have Germanic *kW > *h(w) in Gothic a�hns "oven"
      - We have *aupn- in Greek (h)ipn�s, Bret. offen "Steintrog".

      LEAVE
      - We have Germanic *kW > *hw in Gothic leihWan, E. loan, etc.
      - We have *leip- in Toch. lip- "�brigbleiben"

      LIVER
      - We probably have *lepr.t (although *lekWr.t is also possible) in Arm. leard
      "liver"

      BID
      - We have *bheidh- Toch. B peti "Verehrung".

      In other words, the tendency for **pW to become *kW also worked in Germanic,
      while the retention of *pW (as *p, with loss of labialization) is not unknown
      outside of Germanic either.


      =======================
      Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
      mcv@...



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
      ns



      Do You Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes

    • Glen Gordon
      ... Thanks for the input. And now a theory... What if *bHlagHmen- does in fact relate to *bHleg-? How? Am I mad? Perhaps. But here is the explanation. I still
      Message 2 of 29 , Sep 1 7:13 PM
        Piotr:
        >*bHleg- ~ *bHlag- / *bHlog- 'burn', as in "flagrant", "phlegm",
        >"flame" and "phlogiston". OE blac still meant 'shining' or 'pale'
        >rather than 'black' (the original colour term was <sweart>). At the
        >Indo-Aryan end we have <bHrgu->, a race of fire-beings. There are of
        >course other similar roots that have to do with shining or burning,
        >and perhaps they are all extension of *bHel- 'shine'. Still, *bHlag^H-
        >remains difficult.

        Thanks for the input. And now a theory...

        What if *bHlagHmen- does in fact relate to *bHleg-? How? Am I mad?
        Perhaps. But here is the explanation.

        I still can't get it out of my head that, at some point in the
        murky Pre-IE past (early Late IE, if you will), that voiced plain
        stops that were immediately followed by an aspirate (either *h or
        *x) often merged together as a single "voiced aspirate" phoneme.
        Thus cluster sequences like *dx- or *dh- would end up becoming a
        single phoneme *dH-. We should then see stuff like *daxnu- versus
        *dHan-, let's say, and scratch our heads wondering why they look so
        much alike but yet they are unrelated... or so one would assume.

        We could also explain *bHlagHmen- in the same way. The *bHlagH-
        in *bHlagHmen- could merely be *bHlag- + *-x- [transitive]. Hence,
        the function of a *bHlagHmen- (< *bHlagx-men-) is to burn things...
        Erh, well that admittedly sounds like a pyromaniac until one
        realizes that "burning" is connected with concepts like "offerings"
        and "ritual". Thus, it is a name very fitting for a priest devoted
        to such things.

        Just a thought, cuz I can't think of a better one.


        - gLeN


        _________________________________________________________________
        MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
        http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
      • Piotr Gasiorowski
        Do think of a better one, Glen. First, we need *g^H, not *gH, to account for , in principle. Even allowing for the possibility of *gH h and
        Message 3 of 29 , Sep 1 11:22 PM
          Do think of a better one, Glen. First, we need *g^H, not *gH, to account for <brahman->, in principle. Even allowing for the possibility of *gH > h and pointing to the actual example of duhitar- < *dHugh2te:r (with Iranian -g-) as a precedent, we'd still expect *brahiman in Indic.
           
          Piotr
           
           
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 4:13 AM
          Subject: Re: [tied] Seeking Information Please


          We could also explain *bHlagHmen- in the same way. The *bHlagH- in *bHlagHmen- could merely be *bHlag- + *-x- [transitive]. Hence, the function of a *bHlagHmen- (< *bHlagx-men-) is to burn things... Erh, well that admittedly sounds like a pyromaniac until one
          realizes that "burning" is connected with concepts like "offerings" and "ritual". Thus, it is a name very fitting for a priest devoted to such things.

          Just a thought, cuz I can't think of a better one.
        • Glen Gordon
          ... You misunderstood. First, My *gH is a **non-uvular** stop, traditionally seen as a **palatal** stop. Since we know that it is strongly unlikely that *gH
          Message 4 of 29 , Sep 2 12:41 AM
            >Do think of a better one, Glen. First, we need *g^H, not
            >*gH,

            You misunderstood. First, My *gH is a **non-uvular** stop,
            traditionally seen as a **palatal** stop. Since we know
            that it is strongly unlikely that *gH was ever palatalized
            in Indo-European because of markedness issues, why must we
            continue to write it as such? Your first arguement has no
            bearing on anything because I'm indeed refering to the
            phoneme that you require, *g^H (ie: a non-uvular voiced
            aspirate stop).


            >Even allowing for the possibility of *gH > h and pointing
            >to the actual example of duhitar- < *dHugh2te:r (with
            >Iranian -g-) as a precedent, we'd still expect *brahiman
            >in Indic.

            The example of *dHugxte:r becoming /duhitar-/ shows that
            we started out with an Indo-European cluster *gx (not a
            single phoneme *gH) that changed to *gH^x at some point
            in Indo-Iranian, leaving *x to cause /i/ in Sanskrit.
            I'm refering to something different here.

            I said that in Indo-European itself, there may be
            instances of what were _already_ voiced aspirate stops
            that are the product of voiced plain stops plus laryngeal
            in some Pre-IE stage (more specifically, early Late IE).

            So... In the case of *bhlagHmen-, the merger of *gx (your
            *g^x) to *gH (your *g^H) would have *already* happened in
            Indo-European itself. We wouldn't expect a reflex like
            /*bhrahiman-/ because there was no laryngeal to cause *i.
            We aren't reconstructing *bhlagxmen- in Indo-European
            proper. The latter form was meant to be EARLY Late IE,
            again, I repeat, EARLY Late IE, a stage of Pre-IE.

            I hope that makes sense now.


            - gLeN


            _________________________________________________________________
            Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
          • Miguel Carrasquer
            On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 07:41:42 +0000, Glen Gordon ... Actually, given Indo-Iranian *dhaugh- to milk , it makes more sense to
            Message 5 of 29 , Sep 2 4:15 AM
              On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 07:41:42 +0000, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
              wrote:

              >The example of *dHugxte:r becoming /duhitar-/ shows that
              >we started out with an Indo-European cluster *gx (not a
              >single phoneme *gH) that changed to *gH^x at some point
              >in Indo-Iranian, leaving *x to cause /i/ in Sanskrit.

              Actually, given Indo-Iranian *dhaugh- "to milk", it makes more sense to analyze
              the "daughter" word as *dhugh-h2ter-, which regularly gives Skt. duhitar, Av.
              duGDar, dug&dar and the reflexes with assimilated *dhukter- (Goth. dauhtar,
              Slav. dUs^ti, Lith. dukte:). In Greek thugáte:r, perhaps the aspiration of *gh
              was lost before *h2, like it is lost before *s in e.g. thriks (G. trikhos).


              =======================
              Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
              mcv@...
            • richardwordingham
              ... a subject which has long perplexed me. How far back does this push the separation between p-Celtic and c-Celtic? It doesn t affect the dating at all.
              Message 6 of 29 , Sep 2 4:46 AM
                --- In cybalist@y..., guto rhys <gutorhys@y...> wrote:
                >
                > Thanks for the comprenesive answer. This helps me a great deal with
                a subject which has long perplexed me. How far back does this push
                the separation between p-Celtic and c-Celtic?

                It doesn't affect the dating at all. Miguel is taking about the
                development of *pW; the P- v. Q-Celtic split is marked by the
                development of *kW.

                Hoe common is the term C-Celtic? It's seems much better than Q-
                Celtic, which is purely the primitive form.

                *pW seems an ill-supported, but neat idea. The Germanic evidence
                could simply indicate that the merger xW > f (or, if earlier, kW > p)
                started but soon halted. In Germanic it could easily spread word by
                word. To demonstrate it, we'd need evidence in another IE group, or
                Nostratic evidence for a labial instead of a guttural in these
                words. The non-Germanic parallels seem weak, and the Germanic
                inconsistencies point to a sporadic change. (But then Pre-Germanic
                *pW > *p may also have been sporadic.) I find it had to believe that
                the Nostratic evidence could be strong, even if the theory be
                correct. So far I think *pW is not proven.

                gLeN hasn't attacked this thread yet. Perhaps he now understands
                that 'labialised' simply means 'with rounded lips'; labialised
                labials are not 'labio-labial'.

                Richard.
              • tgpedersen
                ... p) ... by ... or ... Any relation of lucht/Luft, or is that later? Torsten
                Message 7 of 29 , Sep 2 4:57 AM
                  --- In cybalist@y..., "richardwordingham" <richard.wordingham@m...>
                  wrote:
                  > --- In cybalist@y..., guto rhys <gutorhys@y...> wrote:
                  > >
                  > *pW seems an ill-supported, but neat idea. The Germanic evidence
                  > could simply indicate that the merger xW > f (or, if earlier, kW >
                  p)
                  > started but soon halted. In Germanic it could easily spread word
                  by
                  > word. To demonstrate it, we'd need evidence in another IE group,
                  or
                  >
                  > Richard.

                  Any relation of lucht/Luft, or is that later?

                  Torsten
                • Miguel Carrasquer
                  On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 11:46:51 -0000, richardwordingham ... Nostratic evidence is hard to come by, and even if found not likely to convince many people. PIE
                  Message 8 of 29 , Sep 2 8:44 AM
                    On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 11:46:51 -0000, "richardwordingham"
                    <richard.wordingham@...> wrote:

                    >*pW seems an ill-supported, but neat idea. The Germanic evidence
                    >could simply indicate that the merger xW > f (or, if earlier, kW > p)
                    >started but soon halted. In Germanic it could easily spread word by
                    >word. To demonstrate it, we'd need evidence in another IE group, or
                    >Nostratic evidence for a labial instead of a guttural in these
                    >words. The non-Germanic parallels seem weak, and the Germanic
                    >inconsistencies point to a sporadic change. (But then Pre-Germanic
                    >*pW > *p may also have been sporadic.) I find it had to believe that
                    >the Nostratic evidence could be strong, even if the theory be
                    >correct. So far I think *pW is not proven.

                    Nostratic evidence is hard to come by, and even if found not likely to convince
                    many people. PIE *ye:kWr "liver", pre-PIE **lyé:pWn.t < **lí:punt can be
                    compared to words for "spleen" in Cushitic (Afar ale'fu:, pl. a'lefit); Chadic
                    (Angas lap); Uralic (Cheremis lep(a), Votyak lup, Zyryene lOp, Saami *dapde,
                    Teryugan Ostyak LAp&tne, Hung. lép, Forest nenets Laps'a) and Tungus (Orok
                    lipc^e): Dolgopol'skij #104), while PIE *kWétwor- "four", pre-PIE **pWét-wa:r- <
                    **pút- can be compared to Afro-Asiatic *p.ut.-/*?a-p.t.- "four" (Chadic *fud.u,
                    Eg. ?ftaw, Beja fad.-ig, Somali ?afar, Semitic (with metathesis) *?arb-a3-).
                    Convinced? I didn't think so.

                    =======================
                    Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
                    mcv@...
                  • Miguel Carrasquer
                    ... Much later. A Dutch soundlaw ft xt (gracht
                    Message 9 of 29 , Sep 2 8:47 AM
                      On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 11:57:42 -0000, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

                      >Any relation of lucht/Luft, or is that later?

                      Much later. A Dutch soundlaw ft > xt (gracht < graft, lucht < luft, kracht <
                      kraft, zacht < sa~ft, etc.)

                      =======================
                      Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
                      mcv@...
                    • richardwordingham
                      ... could simply indicate that the merger xW f (or, if earlier, kW p) started but soon halted. In Germanic it could easily spread word by word. To
                      Message 10 of 29 , Sep 2 10:43 AM
                        Richard Wordingham wrote:
                        >> *pW seems an ill-supported, but neat idea. The Germanic evidence
                        could simply indicate that the merger xW > f (or, if earlier, kW > p)
                        started but soon halted. In Germanic it could easily spread word by
                        word. To demonstrate it, we'd need evidence in another IE group, or
                        Nostratic evidence for a labial instead of a guttural in these
                        words. The non-Germanic parallels seem weak, and the Germanic
                        inconsistencies point to a sporadic change. (But then Pre-Germanic
                        *pW > *p may also have been sporadic.) I find it hard to believe
                        that the Nostratic evidence could be strong, even if the theory be
                        correct. So far I think *pW is not proven.

                        --- Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
                        > Nostratic evidence is hard to come by, and even if found not likely
                        to convince many people. PIE *ye:kWr "liver", pre-PIE **lyé:pWn.t <
                        **lí:punt can be compared to words for "spleen" in Cushitic (Afar
                        ale'fu:, pl. a'lefit); Chadic (Angas lap); Uralic (Cheremis lep(a),
                        Votyak lup, Zyryene lOp, Saami *dapde,Teryugan Ostyak LAp&tne, Hung.
                        lép, Forest nenets Laps'a) and Tungus (Orok lipc^e): Dolgopol'skij
                        #104)

                        Richard:
                        What's the Afro-Asiatic reconstruction?

                        The semantics are good.

                        Miguel:
                        > while PIE *kWétwor- "four", pre-PIE **pWét-wa:r- < **pút- can be
                        compared to Afro-Asiatic *p.ut.-/*?a-p.t.- "four" (Chadic *fud.u,
                        Eg. ?ftaw, Beja fad.-ig, Somali ?afar, Semitic (with metathesis) *?
                        arb-a3-).

                        > Convinced? I didn't think so.

                        Richard:
                        If the Afro-Asiatic labials are the same, and the ideas went from PIE
                        out to Nostratic, it looks convincing. (I wouldn't be convinced if
                        the origin of the idea were some mass comparatist matching labials
                        and just picking out Germanic words when the other IE words did not
                        match. In statistics, the way you do the sampling matters.) I'd
                        like to see Piotr's demolition job. Or does that offer only apply to
                        the dormant Nostratic list?

                        To demonstrate IE *pW, the words for 'four' don't even have to be
                        cognate! I think a loan between the ancestral languages is
                        plausible. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

                        Richard.
                      • Miguel Carrasquer
                        On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 17:43:41 -0000, richardwordingham ... What s an Afro-Asiatic reconstruction? :-) I have Ehret, and frankly, it s rubbish. Orel &
                        Message 11 of 29 , Sep 2 3:16 PM
                          On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 17:43:41 -0000, "richardwordingham"
                          <richard.wordingham@...> wrote:

                          >--- Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
                          >> Nostratic evidence is hard to come by, and even if found not likely
                          >to convince many people. PIE *ye:kWr "liver", pre-PIE **lyé:pWn.t <
                          >**lí:punt can be compared to words for "spleen" in Cushitic (Afar
                          >ale'fu:, pl. a'lefit); Chadic (Angas lap); Uralic (Cheremis lep(a),
                          >Votyak lup, Zyryene lOp, Saami *dapde,Teryugan Ostyak LAp&tne, Hung.
                          >lép, Forest nenets Laps'a) and Tungus (Orok lipc^e): Dolgopol'skij
                          >#104)
                          >
                          >Richard:
                          >What's the Afro-Asiatic reconstruction?

                          What's an Afro-Asiatic reconstruction? :-)

                          I have Ehret, and frankly, it's rubbish. Orel & Stolbova, from what I gather,
                          are not much better.

                          >The semantics are good.
                          >
                          >Miguel:
                          >> while PIE *kWétwor- "four", pre-PIE **pWét-wa:r- < **pút- can be
                          >compared to Afro-Asiatic *p.ut.-/*?a-p.t.- "four" (Chadic *fud.u,
                          >Eg. ?ftaw,

                          Correction *?fdaw (where <d> was emphatic /t./).

                          >Beja fad.-ig, Somali ?afar, Semitic (with metathesis) *?arb-a3-).
                          >
                          >> Convinced? I didn't think so.
                          >
                          >Richard:
                          >If the Afro-Asiatic labials are the same, and the ideas went from PIE
                          >out to Nostratic, it looks convincing. (I wouldn't be convinced if
                          >the origin of the idea were some mass comparatist matching labials
                          >and just picking out Germanic words when the other IE words did not
                          >match. In statistics, the way you do the sampling matters.) I'd
                          >like to see Piotr's demolition job. Or does that offer only apply to
                          >the dormant Nostratic list?
                          >
                          >To demonstrate IE *pW, the words for 'four' don't even have to be
                          >cognate! I think a loan between the ancestral languages is
                          >plausible. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

                          True, borrowings will also do. The most likely source of borrowing, Semitic, is
                          problematic in this case, however (?arba3u, with metathesis *?ap.t.- > *?at.p.-
                          > *?adb- > ?arb-, and a what's the `ayn doing there?), while Egyptian (not
                          likely, but possible) has *?fdw < *?ap.t-. The best fit is Chadic, but somehow
                          a PIE-Chadic borrowing seems unlikely. I find it encouraging that there's also
                          a plausible link between AA and IE "3": "PN" *tiláti > PAA *c^ala:c^ > Sem.
                          *t_ala:t_ // PPIE *t^lát^ > *trét^- > PIE *trey- (ordinal tr.t-yós).



                          =======================
                          Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
                          mcv@...
                        • Glen Gordon
                          ... Well, I dunno. Do people tend to milk their daughters where you come from? - gLeN _________________________________________________________________ Chat
                          Message 12 of 29 , Sep 2 7:28 PM
                            Miguel:
                            >Actually, given Indo-Iranian *dhaugh- "to milk", it makes more sense to
                            >analyze the "daughter" word as *dhugh-h2ter-, [...]

                            Well, I dunno. Do people tend to milk their daughters where you come from?


                            - gLeN


                            _________________________________________________________________
                            Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
                          • Miguel Carrasquer
                            On Tue, 03 Sep 2002 02:28:36 +0000, Glen Gordon ... Daughters tend to milk their mothers. Cf. Grk. koura, We. hogen, Slav. de^va,
                            Message 13 of 29 , Sep 3 3:10 AM
                              On Tue, 03 Sep 2002 02:28:36 +0000, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
                              wrote:

                              >Miguel:
                              >>Actually, given Indo-Iranian *dhaugh- "to milk", it makes more sense to
                              >>analyze the "daughter" word as *dhugh-h2ter-, [...]
                              >
                              >Well, I dunno. Do people tend to milk their daughters where you come from?

                              Daughters tend to milk their mothers. Cf. Grk. koura, We. hogen, Slav. de^va,
                              Lat. fi:lia, Latv de:ls, all from roots meaning "suck, nourish, milk".

                              =======================
                              Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
                              mcv@...
                            • richardwordingham
                              ... **pút- can be ... borrowing, Semitic, is ... Egyptian (not ... but somehow ... there s also ... *c^ala:c^ Sem. ... tr.t-yós). I was thinking in terms
                              Message 14 of 29 , Sep 3 6:09 AM
                                --- In cybalist@y..., Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@w...> wrote:
                                > On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 17:43:41 -0000, "richardwordingham"
                                > <richard.wordingham@m...> wrote:
                                >
                                > >--- Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
                                > >Miguel:
                                > >> while PIE *kWétwor- "four", pre-PIE **pWét-wa:r- <
                                **pút- can be
                                > >compared to Afro-Asiatic *p.ut.-/*?a-p.t.- "four" (Chadic *fud.u,
                                > >Eg. ?ftaw,
                                >
                                > Correction *?fdaw (where <d> was emphatic /t./).
                                >
                                > >Beja fad.-ig, Somali ?afar, Semitic (with metathesis) *?arb-a3-).
                                > >
                                > >To demonstrate IE *pW, the words for 'four' don't even have to be
                                > >cognate! I think a loan between the ancestral languages is
                                > >plausible. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.
                                >
                                > True, borrowings will also do. The most likely source of
                                borrowing, Semitic, is
                                > problematic in this case, however (?arba3u, with metathesis *?ap.t.-
                                > *?at.p.-
                                > > *?adb- > ?arb-, and a what's the `ayn doing there?), while
                                Egyptian (not
                                > likely, but possible) has *?fdw < *?ap.t-. The best fit is Chadic,
                                but somehow
                                > a PIE-Chadic borrowing seems unlikely. I find it encouraging that
                                there's also
                                > a plausible link between AA and IE "3": "PN" *tiláti > PAA
                                *c^ala:c^ > Sem.
                                > *t_ala:t_ // PPIE *t^lát^ > *trét^- > PIE *trey- (ordinal
                                tr.t-yós).

                                I was thinking in terms of the more recent date of 8000-6000 BC for
                                the Afro-Asiatic split, as discussed in
                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/2612 . This would
                                allow a loan between proto-AA and an ancestor of PIE. (I accept
                                Renfrew's theory for IE origins.)

                                I'm beginning to have some qualms about liver ~ spleen. I was
                                thinking of liver ~ pancreas. Is the use of a word for liver to
                                refer to the spleen attested? I have a vague suspicion that
                                Thai 'tap lek', literally 'iron liver', might mean 'spleen', but I
                                can't find it in my dictionaries. Does anyone on the list know Thai
                                well enough to answer?

                                Richard.
                              • alexmoeller@t-online.de
                                ... From: Glen Gordon To: Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 4:28 AM Subject: Re: [tied] Seeking
                                Message 15 of 29 , Sep 3 9:24 AM
                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  From: "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
                                  To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
                                  Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 4:28 AM
                                  Subject: Re: [tied] Seeking Information Please


                                  >
                                  > Miguel:
                                  > >Actually, given Indo-Iranian *dhaugh- "to milk", it makes
                                  more sense to
                                  > >analyze the "daughter" word as *dhugh-h2ter-, [...]
                                  >
                                  > Well, I dunno. Do people tend to milk their daughters where
                                  you come from?
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > - gLeN

                                  [Moeller]Glen, Glen ... that rememebr me of the barbar and
                                  Barbarella:-)))
                                • richardwordingham
                                  ... related cultures, other than Celtic and Roman, whose societal ... classes/castes. There s always the Hindu caste system, which I believe started the whole
                                  Message 16 of 29 , Sep 6 12:17 PM
                                    --- In cybalist@y..., "Greaghoir MacIain" <greaghoir@f...> wrote:
                                    > Does any one happen to know of any other Indo-European linguisticly
                                    related cultures, other than Celtic and Roman, whose societal
                                    castes/classes corespond to:
                                    >
                                    > 1) religious functionaries
                                    > 2) warriors
                                    > 3) landowner/merchent
                                    >
                                    > If so, what are the cultures, and what are the names of the
                                    classes/castes.

                                    There's always the Hindu caste system, which I believe started the
                                    whole idea of this analysis:

                                    1) brahmins - priests
                                    2) kshatriyas - warriors
                                    3) sudras - cultivators.

                                    Check on number 3 - I may have got it wrong. There is a fourth
                                    caste, but the argument goes that it doesn't matter. (I hope that's
                                    not along the lines of, 'No one who really mattered was poor.')

                                    Richard.
                                  • guto rhys
                                    Good, beer - one of my favourite subjects. to brew in Welsh is bragu - I don t know its etymology. Cwrw is beer (
                                    Message 17 of 29 , Sep 7 8:44 AM
                                      Good, beer - one of my favourite subjects.

                                      'to brew' in Welsh is 'bragu' - I don't know its
                                      etymology. 'Cwrw' is beer (<'cwrwf' < 'cwrf' <
                                      Celt.'korma').

                                      You'll also find the word used for a rather nice
                                      Breton beer, brewed in Montroulez (Morlaix) called
                                      'Koreff' (a revived medieval form).

                                      I won't postulate any connection, certainly without
                                      looking in my reference books - I'll leave that to the
                                      experts. But I have long wondered whether there could
                                      just possibly be a link. Guto

                                      __________________________________________________
                                      Do You Yahoo!?
                                      Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
                                      http://finance.yahoo.com
                                    • Richard Wordingham
                                      ... Looking for this entry in Dolgopolsky s Nostratic Dictionary by searching for the word liver , I found quite a few case where spleen occurred as the
                                      Message 18 of 29 , Jul 6, 2013
                                        --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "richardwordingham" <richard.wordingham@...> wrote:

                                        > I'm beginning to have some qualms about liver ~ spleen. I was
                                        > thinking of liver ~ pancreas. Is the use of a word for liver to
                                        > refer to the spleen attested? I have a vague suspicion that
                                        > Thai 'tap lek', literally 'iron liver', might mean 'spleen', but I
                                        > can't find it in my dictionaries. Does anyone on the list know Thai
                                        > well enough to answer?

                                        I never got a reply that justified words for 'spleen' and 'liver' being cognate as suggested by Miguel (Carrasquer Vidal) in http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/14952 :

                                        > Nostratic evidence is hard to come by, and even if found not likely > to convince many people. PIE *ye:kWr "liver", pre-PIE **lyé:pWn.t <
                                        > **lí:punt can be compared to words for "spleen" in Cushitic (Afar
                                        > ale'fu:, pl. a'lefit); Chadic (Angas lap); Uralic (Cheremis lep(a),
                                        > Votyak lup, Zyryene lOp, Saami *dapde, Teryugan Ostyak LAp&tne,
                                        > Hung. lép, Forest nenets Laps'a) and Tungus (Orok lipc^e):
                                        > Dolgopol'skij #104), while PIE *kWétwor- "four", pre-PIE
                                        > **pWét-wa:r- < **pút- can be compared to Afro-Asiatic
                                        > *p.ut.-/*?a-p.t.- "four" (Chadic *fud.u, Eg. ?ftaw, Beja fad.-ig,
                                        > Somali ?afar, Semitic (with metathesis) *?arb-a3-).

                                        Looking for this entry in Dolgopolsky's 'Nostratic Dictionary' by searching for the word 'liver', I found quite a few case where 'spleen' occurred as the meaning of an alleged cognate of a word meaning 'liver'.

                                        Moreover, I am now in possession of a copy of the Thai Royal Institute Dictionary. So I looked up Thai 'tap lek'. The meaning is given as _mA:m khO:ng mU:_ - 'spleen of pig'! Bingo! The semantics match. It's a been long time, but I think this confirmation is worth posting.

                                        Richard.
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.